A mother accompanies her daughter, who has autism, through the school day herself. The parents consider a permanent school support worker necessary, but the youth welfare provider points to a pool system with support workers deployed jointly. The dispute ends up in court. The Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court rejects the family’s urgent application for interim relief, but at the same time criticises the youth welfare provider’s insufficiently documented needs assessment (decision of 22 September 2026, case no. 3 MB 25/26). The case concerns German youth welfare law.
Parents demand a permanent school support worker
The girl started school for the 2026/2027 school year. It was undisputed between the parties that she can in principle be entitled to integration assistance under section 35a SGB VIII. They disagreed about what support is needed at school.
The parents demanded personal one-to-one (1:1) school support. The youth welfare provider, by contrast, considered a pool solution sufficient. In this model, several support workers look after different children as needed.
According to the mother, her daughter often needs support unexpectedly. A pool support worker might then not be able to help immediately. By her own account, the mother has therefore provided the support herself since school began.
Why the urgent application failed
The Schleswig Administrative Court initially rejected the urgent application. The appeal to the Higher Administrative Court was also unsuccessful.
The decisive factor was the lack of a credible showing of urgency. The family had applied for provisional assumption of costs. In the court’s view, there was insufficient information on the amount of the costs and on whether the parents could temporarily bear them until the decision in the main proceedings.
The missing information was not submitted in the appeal proceedings. The application therefore failed already at the requirements for interim relief proceedings.
Important: This does not create a general obligation for parents to finance necessary school support themselves. The court decided on the urgency of this specific application.
Court criticises the youth welfare office’s needs assessment
Although the family lost in the interim relief proceedings, the Higher Administrative Court expressed clear doubts about the youth welfare provider’s decision.
The provider had stated that pool support could fully cover the girl’s support needs. However, the administrative files contained no sufficient documents that made this assessment comprehensible.
The cited observation visits and consultations were also not documented accordingly. The court therefore questioned whether the individual need for help had been adequately determined.
It did not make a final decision on this. The rejection of the urgent application therefore does not mean at all that pool support was confirmed as suitable.
When is there an entitlement to 1:1 school support?
An autism diagnosis alone does not establish an automatic entitlement to a permanent support person. What matters is what support the child needs and whether other services can also meet this need.
The basis is integration assistance under section 35a SGB VIII. For longer-term assistance, the support need must be determined in the assistance plan procedure under section 36 SGB VIII with the participation of those concerned and several professionals.
A pool solution can be suitable. However, it must not be preferred merely because it already exists at the school. What remains decisive is whether the child actually receives the support they need.
Which tasks school support workers can take on is explained in our article School support workers in everyday school life: goals, role, independence.
What parents can do when problems arise
Parents should document as precisely as possible when their child needs support and why existing help may not be sufficient. Helpful are current opinions, observations from school and concrete examples from lessons or break times.
Anyone who wants to apply for support will find further information in our guide Applying for a school support worker: responsibility and procedure (in German).
If an application is rejected, legal steps can be considered. The options are explained in our article Applying for benefits and filing an objection.
In an urgent court application, parents must plausibly set out not only the possible entitlement but also the particular urgency. Early legal advice can therefore be sensible.
Conclusion: what matters is the child’s need
The decision gives priority neither to 1:1 school support nor to a pool solution in principle. Both models must be measured against the child’s actual support need.
For youth welfare providers, this means: they must explain comprehensibly why a particular form of help is suitable. Parents, in turn, should substantiate their child’s need as concretely as possible.
Whether school support works is decided not by its name, but by whether the child receives the support they need in everyday school life.
Sources
Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court: Decision of 22 September 2026 – 3 MB 25/26 (in German).
Section 35a SGB VIII – integration assistance for children and adolescents with a mental disability (statute text in German).
Section 36 SGB VIII – participation, assistance plan (statute text in German).
Section 123 VwGO – interim injunction (statute text in German).
Found a mistake?
If something is factually wrong, out of date or unclear, let us know. You do not have to give any personal details.
